We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Prosthodontics
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Prosthodont 29 (2016), No. 4     1. July 2016
Int J Prosthodont 29 (2016), No. 4  (01.07.2016)

Page 340-350, doi:10.11607/ijp.4711, PubMed:27479339


Parallel Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial in Patients with Temporomandibular Disorders Treated with a CAD/CAM Versus a Conventional Stabilization Splint
Duc, Jean Marc Pho / Hüning, Sandra Vargas / Grossi, Márcio Lima
Purpose: This parallel randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared the efficacy of a computeraided design/computer-assisted manufacture (CAD/CAM) splint versus a conventional stabilization splint in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD).
Materials and Methods: A sample of 48 age-matched TMD patients from the Ludwig Maximilian University Prosthodontic Department in Munich, Germany, were randomly allocated into groups 1 (CAD/ CAM splint) and 2 (conventional splint). The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) was used for TMD Axis I (groups I, II, and III) and Axis II (chronic pain grade [CPG]) diagnoses. Numeric scales (TMD/NS, 10 cm) were used to measure headaches, face pain, jaw joint pain, jaw joint noises, mastication pain, neck pain, face tension, limitation of mouth opening, complaints during mastication, and teeth sensitivity at baseline and then monthly for 9 months (T1 to T10). Optical axiography was used to measure right and left condyle movements (mm) at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months (T1, T4, and T7).
Results: A total of 32 patients (drop-out rate = 33%; 68.75% women; 28.51 ± 7.13 years old), 16 per group, completed the study. RDC/TMD Axis I showed the following diagnoses: 93.75% muscle disorders, 37.75% disc displacement with reduction, 3.12% disc displacement without reduction, and 56.25% arthralgia. There was a significant reduction in 10 out of 13 items of the TMD/NS in the CAD/ CAM splint versus 8 out of 13 in the conventional splint. However, no significant improvement in mandibular movements (ie, increase in range of motion and reduction in asymmetry between right and left condyles) was observed.
Conclusion: Both treatments were equally efficacious and no difference was found between them.